Transcript DavidBooth-rdf-as-un..

RDF as a Universal
Healthcare Exchange Language
David Booth, Ph.D.
KnowMED, Inc.
2013 Semantic Technology and Business Conference
San Francisco, CA
Latest version of these slides:
http://dbooth.org/2013/munnecke/DavidBooth-rdf-as-universal.pdf
Imagine a world
2
Imagine a world
all healthcare systems
speak the same language
with the same meanings
covering all healthcare.
in which
3
What would it be like?
• Better treatment
• Better research
• Lower cost
Goal: True semantic interoperability
4
Healthcare today
Tower of Babel, Abel Grimmer (1570-1619)
5
6
"PCAST has also concluded that to
achieve these objectives it is crucial that
the Federal Government facilitate the
nationwide adoption of a
universal exchange language
for healthcare information"
7
Why RDF?
8
Why RDF?
1.Semantics, not syntax
9
Why RDF?
1.Semantics, not syntax
2.Self describing – derefenceable URIs
10
Why RDF?
1.Semantics, not syntax
2.Self describing
3.Schema promiscuous
11
Why RDF?
Schema promiscuous
• Blue App has model
12
Why RDF?
Schema promiscuous
• Red App has model
13
Why RDF?
Schema promiscuous
• Merge RDF data
• Same nodes (URIs) join automatically
Multiple models peacefully coexist
14
Why RDF?
Schema promiscuous
• Add relationships and rules
• (Relationships are also RDF)
15
Why RDF?
Schema promiscuous
• Later add Green model
(Using Red & Blue models)
16
Why RDF?
Schema promiscuous
• What the Blue app sees:
– No difference!
17
Why RDF?
Schema promiscuous
• What the Red app sees
– No difference!
18
Why RDF?
Schema promiscuous
• What the Green app sees
– No difference!
19
Why RDF?
1.Semantics, not syntax
2.Self describing
3.Schema promiscuous
4.Neutral, mature, international standard
20
Why RDF?
1.Semantics, not syntax
2.Self describing
3.Schema promiscuous
4.Neutral, mature, international standard
Best available option for a universal
healthcare exchange language!
21
Will RDF achieve true semantic
interoperability?
• No. But it will get us closer.
• And along with the right policy incentives,
RDF can get us much closer.
22
Misconceptions
• Change EHR databases to RDF stores?
– No. Just transform to/from RDF for
exchange.
• Discard existing healthcare information
standards (HL7, SNOMED, LOINC,
etc.)?
– No. Leverage them by mapping to RDF.
23
Goal: Semantic Interoperability
Sender1
HL7 v2.x
Sender2
Receiver
?
FHIR
• Receiver wishes to combine and understand
data from Sender1 and Sender2
24
Sender1 data: HL7 v2.x
Sender1
HL7 v2.x
Sender2
OBX|1|CE|3727-0^BPsystolic,
sitting||120||mmHg|
Receiver
?
FHIR
(Fictitious examples for illustration)
25
Sender2 data: FHIR
Sender1
HL7 v2.x
Sender2
FHIR
<Observation
xmlns="http://hl7.org/fhir">
<system value="http://loinc.org"/>
<code value="8580-6"/>
<display value="Systolic BP"/>
<value value="107"/>
<units value="mm[Hg]"/>
</Observation>
Receiver
?
(Fictitious example for illustration)
26
Receiver data expected: RDF
Sender1
HL7 v2.x
Sender2
FHIR
d1:obs042 a mOut:Observation ;
a mOut:BP_systolic ;
mOut:value 120 ;
mOut:units mOut:mmHg ;
mOut:position mOut:sitting .
d2:obs-091 a mOut:Observation ;
a mOut:BP_systolic ;
mOut:value 107 ;
mOut:units mOut:mmHg .
Receiver
?
27
What to do?
Sender1
HL7 v2.x
Sender2
Receiver
?
FHIR
28
Step 1: Syntactic transformation
Sender1
HL7 v2.x
Sender2
HL7 v2.x
to RDF
Receiver
FHIR
to RDF
?
FHIR
• Transform from source format to substrate model
• Allows data to be merged
• Data may not join semantically due to differing
vocabularies
29
Sender1 syntactic transformation
Sender1
HL7 v2.x
Sender2
HL7 v2.x
to RDF
OBX|1|CE|3727-0^BPsystolic,
sitting||120||mmHg|
Receiver
?
RDF
FHIR
d1:obs042
a m1:PatientObservation ;
to RDF
m1:code "3727-0" ;
FHIR
m1:description "BPsystolic, sitting" ;
m1:value 120 ;
m1:units "mmHg" .
30
Sender2 syntactic transformation
Sender1
HL7 v2.x
Sender2
<Observation
xmlns="http://hl7.org/fhir">
HL7 <system
v2.x
value="http://loinc.org"/>
to RDF
<code value="8580-6"/>
<display value="Systolic BP"/>
<value value="107"/>
<units value="mm[Hg]"/>
</Observation>
FHIR
to RDF
Receiver
?
FHIR
d2:obs-091 a m2:Observation ;
m2:system "http://loinc.org" ;
m2:code "8580-6" ;
m2:display "Systolic BP" ;
m2:value 107 ;
m2:units "mm[Hg]" .
RDF
31
How to align semantically?
Sender1
HL7 v2.x
Sender2
HL7 v2.x
to RDF
Receiver
FHIR
to RDF
?
FHIR
32
Step 2: Semantic transformation
Sender1
HL7 v2.x
Sender2
HL7 v2.x
to RDF
FHIR
to RDF
RDF
to RDF
Receiver
RDF
to RDF
FHIR
33
Sender1 semantic transformation
Sender1
HL7 v2.x
Sender2
FHIR
HL7 v2.x
to RDF
FHIR
to RDF
RDF
to RDF
Receiver
CONSTRUCT
{
RDF
?observation
a mOut:Observation ;
to RDF
a mOut:BP_systolic ;
mOut:value ?value ;
mOut:units mOut:mmHg ;
mOut:position mOut:sitting . }
WHERE {
?observation a m1:PatientObservation ;
m1:code "3727-0" ;
m1:value ?value ;
m1:units "mmHg" . }
34
Sender2 semantic transformation
CONSTRUCT {
?observation a mOut:Observation ;
a mOut:BP_systolic ;
Sender1
mOut:value ?value ;
HL7
v2.x
mOut:units
mOut:mmHg
. } RDF
to
RDF
WHERE {
to RDF
HL7
v2.x
?observation a m2:Observation ;
m2:system "http://loinc.org" ;
m2:code "8580-6" ;
m2:value ?value ;
RDF
m2:units "mm[Hg]" . }
Sender2
FHIR
to RDF
to RDF
RDF
FHIR
to RDF
Receiver
35
Merged RDF
Sender1
HL7 v2.x
Sender2
HL7 v2.x
to RDF
FHIR
to RDF
RDF
to RDF
Receiver
RDF
to RDF
FHIR
36
Merged RDF
Sender1
HL7 v2.x
Sender2
FHIR
HL7 v2.x d1:obs042 a mOut:Observation ;
RDF
a mOut:BP_systolic ;
to RDF
to RDF
FHIR
to RDF
mOut:value 120 ;
mOut:units mOut:mmHg ;
mOut:position mOut:sitting .
d2:obs-091
a mOut:Observation ;
RDF
a mOut:BP_systolic
;
to RDF
mOut:value 107 ;
mOut:units mOut:mmHg .
Receiver
• Can be understood by Receiver!
37
Semantic interoperability
Sender1
HL7 v2.x
Sender2
HL7 v2.x
to RDF
FHIR
to RDF
RDF
to RDF
Receiver
RDF
to RDF
FHIR
Semantic mappings must be
standardized!
38
Which
vocabularies
and models?
39
Standardization
Standard
• PROS: Most efficient; desirable whenever possible
• CONS: Infeasible when committee/standard gets too big
40
Standards and diversity
Std
1
Std
2
Std
3
• RDF accommodates both
41
Yosemite Manifesto
on RDF as a Universal Healthcare Exchange Language
1. RDF is the best available candidate for a universal healthcare exchange
language.
2. Electronic healthcare information should be exchanged in a format that
either: (a) is an RDF format directly; or (b) has a standard mapping to RDF.
3. Existing standard healthcare vocabularies, data models and exchange
languages should be leveraged by defining standard mappings to RDF, and
any new standards should have RDF representations.
4. Government agencies should mandate or incentivize the use of RDF as a
universal healthcare exchange language.
5. Exchanged healthcare information should be self-describing, using Linked
Data principles, so that each concept URI is de-referenceable to its free and
open definition.
Sign at http://YosemiteManifesto.org/
42
Questions?
BACKUP SLIDES
44
Semantic relevance is relative
• Blood Pressure measurement:
– Sitting versus Standing
•
•
•
•
•
Is the difference semantically relevant?
Depends on the application!
v:BP_Machine rdfs:subClassOf v:BP .
v:BP_Manual rdfs:subClassOf v:BP .
{ ?bp a v:BP_Machine . }
=> { ?bp a v:BP . } .
45
Merged RDF
Sender1
HL7 v2.x
Sender2
HL7 v2.x
to RDF
FHIR
to RDF
RDF
to RDF
Receiver
RDF
to RDF
FHIR
46
Step 1: Syntactic transformation
Sender1
HL7 v2.x
Sender2
HL7 v2.x
to RDF
Receiver
FHIR
to RDF
?
FHIR
• Transform from source format to substrate model
• Allows data to be merged
• Data may not link semantically due to differing
vocabularies
47
Sender1 data: HL7 v2.x
Sender1
HL7 v2.x
Sender2
Receiver
?
FHIR
(Fictitious examples for illustration)
48
Yosemite Manifesto
on RDF as a Universal Healthcare Exchange Language
1. RDF is the best available
candidate for a universal healthcare
exchange language.
49
Yosemite Manifesto
on RDF as a Universal Healthcare Exchange Language
2. Electronic healthcare information
should be exchanged in a format
that either: (a) is an RDF format
directly; or (b) has a standard
mapping to RDF.
50
Yosemite Manifesto
on RDF as a Universal Healthcare Exchange Language
3. Existing standard healthcare
vocabularies, data models and
exchange languages should be
leveraged by defining standard
mappings to RDF, and any new
standards should have RDF
representations.
51
Yosemite Manifesto
on RDF as a Universal Healthcare Exchange Language
4. Government agencies should
mandate or incentivize the use of
RDF as a universal healthcare
exchange language.
52
Yosemite Manifesto
on RDF as a Universal Healthcare Exchange Language
5. Exchanged healthcare
information should be selfdescribing, using Linked Data
principles, so that each concept URI
is de-referenceable to its free and
open definition.
53